Media literacy

Figure 3.4.4.c. The share of women among editors-in-chief in the leading news media in the country - Map of risks per country (variable)

to exercise judgment, analyse complex realities and recognise the difference between opin- ion and fact” (AVMSD 2018, 59). The MPM indicator covers two major dimensions of media literacy: environmental factors, and individual competencies, which follow the logic of the categorisation used by EAVI (2009: 5). EAVI defines environmental factors as being a set of contextual factors that have an impact upon the broad span of media literacy, including informational availability, media policy, education and the roles and responsi- bilities of stakeholders in the media community. Individual competencies are defined as an individual’s capacity to exercise certain skills (including inter alia cognitive processing, analysis, communication). These competencies draw on a broad range of capabilities, and embrace increasing levels of awareness, the capacity for critical thought and the ability to produce and communicate a message (EAVI 2009). A new sub-indicator was added to this indicator for the MPM2020 in order to assess the effectiveness of regulation and of other activities that seek to combat or prevent hate speech, especially online and against vulner- able groups, such as minorities, people with disabilities, and women.

Under the Media literacy indicator almost two thirds of countries (19) register a medi- um risk while 7 countries score a low risk (Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germa- ny, the Netherlands, and Sweden), and 4 countries are found to be at high risk (Albania, Cyprus, Romania, and Turkey).

Albania has no proper policy on media literacy, and the law on pre-university edu- cation, bylaws, and strategies, do not specify media literacy as part of the education process in elementary, basic, or secondary schools (Voko et al. 2020). Cyprus also has no media literacy policy framework, as this has been pending since 2012, and con- sequently the matter is not addressed in the education curriculum (Christophorou &

Karides 2020). The situation is similar in Romania, with the lack of a coherent approach in terms of policies on media literacy (Popescu et al. 2020). In all these countries, most efforts, including teachers training, come from civil society, but they are not sufficient, systematic or systemic.

Figure 3.4.5.a. Indicator on Media literacy - Map of risks per country

Media literacy policies are evaluated as being comprehensive in 6 countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). In the vast majority of countries, namely, 19, media literacy policies are available but are not comprehensive, and 5 countries still have no media literacy policy at all (Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary, and Romania). In 21 countries, media literacy is present in the compulsory education curriculum only to a limited extent, or it is completely absent. A well-developed and comprehensive training programme in media literacy for teachers is provided in 6 countries only (Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden). Media literacy activities are growing and are available in all of the countries to different degrees, except in Turkey, where activities on media literacy are hardly ever conducted.

Another dimension taken into account for this indicator’s assessment are the digital competencies of individuals. The assessment is based on Eurostat data on the percentage of the population that has basic, or above basic, overall digital skills in a given country.

Six countries, where more than 68 percent of the population has basic or above basic overall digital skills perform with a low risk (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). A majority of countries (16) score medium risk

Figure 3.4.5.b. Indicator on Media literacy - Averages per sub-indicator

Protection against hate speech is a new sub-indicator in the MPM2020. The Protec- tion against hate speech sub-indicator aims to assess whether there is a (self)regulatory framework to counter hate speech online and whether it has been efficient in removing hate speech towards ethnic or religious minorities, people with disabilities and wom- en, from online platforms, while not presenting any risk to the freedom of expression.

It further takes note about whether there are any media literacy or other educational initiatives in a country that aim to prevent or counteract hate speech. The Protection against hate speech sub-indicator has been added to the Media literacy assessment as it is deemed that the more media literate people are, the more resilient they should be to hate speech, and they should also resist spreading it online by understanding better the potential consequences (including legal, social and individual ones). The competencies within media literacy can educate and empower individuals and provide them with the skills they need to respond to perceived hate speech both rapidly and as it appears.

Media literacy initiatives can also aim to inform individuals about the reach and po- tential impact of unlawful or harmful speech online, as well as about legal frameworks and consequences for that kind of speech, in order to raise awareness and the culture of communication and expression online. The definition of hate speech used here is based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: it is a form of expression that spreads, incites, promotes or justifies hatred based on intolerance.⁵³

The MPM2020 results show that 4 countries only (Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and Sweden) have regulatory frameworks that are perceived as being effective in countering hate speech hate speech online, in particular against vulnerable social groups, such as minorities, people with disabilities and women. In many countries, there is still

53 https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf

insufficient research into the extent and form of hate speech against these and other groups or individuals in the online sphere, but indications are that this is taking place and represents a severe problem. Efforts to counter hate speech towards ethnic or religious minorities, or towards women, from social media have not been effective, or there have been no such efforts in a vast majority of countries (28). Slightly lower risks are recorded with regard to people with disabilities, but only because it seems that they are not as targeted as women and minorities.

Figure 3.4.5.c. Sub-indicator on Protection against hate speech - Map of risks per country